Allahabad Court February 1981 Judgments
New Swadeshi Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1981
Reported in: AIR1981All268
V.K. Mehrotra, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal whose suit for recovery of damages from the respondent was decreed in its entirety by the trial Court but the lower appellate Court modified that decree to an appreciable extent in favour of the defendant-respondent in an appeal by it.2. On may, 19, 1966, the plaintiff handed over a consignment of pineapples to the Railways, owned by the defendant Union of India, for carriage to Allahabad at Trichur railway station. In the normal course, this, consignment should have reached Allahabad within five days of its delivery at Trichur. In fact, however, the consignment reached Allahabad on June 1, 1966 and it was found that the entire lot of pineapples had deteriorated and had become wholly rotten and unfit for use. This deterioration, according to the plaintiff, had been caused on account of the negligent handling of the consignment by the Railways. The Railways were, consequently, liable to compensate the plaintiff by paying to it a su...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rampur Timber and Tannery Co. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1981
Reported in: (1981)21CTR(All)76; [1981]129ITR58(All); [1981]6TAXMAN241(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J. 1. This reference relates to the years 1969-70 and 1970-71. For both these years the Tribunal has referred the following question of law for our opinion: ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, having held that the assessee was not carrying on any business, the Tribunal was legally correct in allowing the entire expenses of Rs. 11,295 in the assessment year 1969-70, and Rs. 10,613 in the assessment year 1970-71, except in so far as it can be related to the income from property ?' 2. The assessee is a public limited company. It carried on business of manufacture and sale of wooden bobbins. That business was discontinued some time in the year 1951. Its stocks, however, remained which were being sold as and when customers were available and the balance was carried forward from year to year. In the accounting year 1968, the stock in hand was Rs. 5,060 while in the accounting year 1969, the stock in hand was reduced to Rs. 4,856. In the year 1969-7...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Mawana Sahkari Kriya Vikriya Samiti
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1981
Reported in: [1982]49STC176(All)
R.R. Rastogi, J.1. This is Commissioner's revision under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter 'the Act') and the question involved is as to whether a single certificate in form III-C(1) covering more than one transaction is valid in law. The brief facts in this behalf are that the respondent-assessee, a co-operative society, carries on business in foodgrains, gur, maida, fertiliser, etc. In its assessment to sales tax under the Act, in respect of the purchases of gur amounting to Rs. 1,35,345.00 the assessee claimed that it was not liable to tax under Section 3-D(2) because those purchases had already suffered tax and it was not the first purchaser thereof and in support of that contention filed one single certificate in form III-C(1). The assessing authority did not accept the assessee's contention because it was of the opinion that one single certificate covering more than one transaction was not legal and valid and accordingly the entire amount of Rs. 1,35,345.00 was...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Mukundi and ors. Vs. Ram NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1981
Reported in: AIR1984All225
N.N. Mithal, J. 1. In this second appeal by the defendants, only a very short point is involved; as to whether the suit property is family dwelling house or not? The plaintiff purchased in Court auction 2/3rd share in the property in dispute and filed a suit for partition of his share. The suit was contested by the defendants on the ground that it was a family dwelling house and, therefore under Section 4 of the Partition Act, the same cannot be partitioned. One of the defendants offered to purchase the share of the plaintiff at the value assessed by the Court. The plaintiff contended that it was not a dwelling house and got a commission issued for local inspection whose report is on the record. The trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court have held that the house was not used for residence and, therefore, it was not a family dwelling house within the meaning of Section 4 of the Partition Act. Agrieved, the defendants have come up in second appeal. 2. From the evidence, it appe...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Agra University Press Paliwal Park
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1981
Reported in: [1984]56STC319(All)
R.R. Rastogi, J.1. M/s. Agra University Press Paliwal Park, Agra, owns a printing press and supplies printed material like envelopes, examination papers, mark-sheets, certificates, etc. For the assessment year 1962-63 the assessee had disclosed its net turnover at Rs. 43,183.77. For various reasons the assessing authority rejected the accounts and the disclosed turnover and determined the same at Rs. 4,25,000. The assessee filed an appeal in which the gross turnover shown by it was accepted but it was held that the entire amount so disclosed was taxable. From that order revisions were filed both by the assessee and the department. The Additional Judge (Revisions) dismissed the revision of the department. The assessee's contention before the Judge (Revisions) was that its main business was to print examination question papers for the Agra and various other Universities and educational institutions in India. This entire work was of a confidential nature and utmost secrecy was required to...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra GosaIn Vs. Superintendent, District Jail and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ802
H.N. Seth, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner Rajendra Gosain who is being detained in the District Jail, Banda ever since 11th Aug., 1979, challenges the validity of his detention and prays for a writ of habeas corpus. According to him, his detention has been rendered invalid inasmuch as the persons responsible for the same have contravened the provisions of Article 22 of the Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also claims that as at present there is no valid order from any competent Court authorising the Superintendent of District Jail, Banda to keep him in custody, he is entitled to be set at liberty forthwith.2. The case of the respondents, on the other hand is that to begin with the petitioner was lodged in the District Jail Banda on 12th Aug., 1979 in pursuance of a warrant of remand in criminal case No. 323 of 1978 under Section 396, I.P.C. Subsequently petitioner's detention was also authorised under remand warrants issued by...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Vidya Devi and ors. Vs. Nand Kumar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1981
Reported in: AIR1981All274
N.N. Mithal, J.1. In this appeal only a short point about the validity of the adoption of Indra Jit Singh by Smt. Saras-wati Kunwar is involved. The suit was filed by the plaintiff respondent in January, 1965 as a nearest reversioner of Smt. Saraswati Kunwar, who allegedly died in the later part of 1964. The suit was dismissed by the trial court but on appeal, the lower appellate court has allowed the same. Aggrieved, the defendants have come up in second Appeal.2. In order to properly understand the case taken up by the plaintiff, it will be necessary to keep in mind the relations between the parties as per pedigree given below :-- GANGA DIN ___________________________|____________________________ | | | Vishnu Tulsi Ram Kalloo _____________|____________ ________|_______________ ______|____________ | | | | | | Thakurdin Govind Behari Tara Chand Harilal Devdin | | (issueless) | died | Sitaram Prag | _________________| | | | | | Kamta Parashram (issueless) | Mannu Chandi |_______________...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Prasad Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ946
Yashoda Nandan, J.1. As a consequence of an order passed on the 19th September. 1980 by the Secretary of U.P. Government, Confidential Department in the name of Governor of the State the petitioner is under detention under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974, hereinafter referred to as the Act. He was taken in custody on the 24th September, 1980 and was immediately served with a copy of grounds on which his detention had been recorded. His detention having been confirmed by the State Government and the representation made by him having been rejected by the Advisory Board constituted under Section 8 of the Act he has filed this petition praying for quashing the order by which he has been detained and for a writ of Habeas Corpus directing his release from detention. He is at present lodged in the Central Jail, Bareilly.2. The material facts which need to be set out for a proper appreciation of the contention raised in suppo...
Tag this Judgment!Nanwa Vs. Maulana Abdul Mughni
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1981
Reported in: AIR1981All143
Deoki Nandan, J.1. Two questions were formulated by this Court while issuing notice of this Execution Second Appeal ' after hearing under Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, namely:1. Whether the execution was barred by time ?2. Whether the opposite party was competent to execute the decree On the first question it appears that the decree was passed by the trial Court on 28th April, 1961 and the application for execution was made on 12th May, 1973, However, the decree was a decree for mandatory injunction and possession inasmuch as it permitted the defendants to remove the debris from the disputed land and in case of their failure to do so within 2 months, the decree-holder was declared entitled to have the debris removed by the process of Court and to obtain possession of the land. The timeallowed for compliance was two months from the date of the decree. The limitation was thus required to foe computed from 28th June, 1961, under Article 135 of the Limitation Act for the...
Tag this Judgment!Mool Chand Vs. Ved Prakash and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1981
Reported in: AIR1981All152
Deoki Nandan, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of a certain area of land situate at Hapur. 2. According to the plaintiff's case the defendants agreed to sell the land detailed at the foot of the plaint at Rs. 6 per square yard. The agreement was entered into on 21st April, 1966 and the sale was to be completed within one month. The sum of Rs. 1,000 was paid as advance and a receipt for the same was executed by the defendants, the same day. That receipt is Ext. I on the record. The plaint proceeds on to allege that the defendants had agreed to carve out a 10 feet wide passage on the south of the land to be sold and the land of the passage was to be excluded in calculating the area of the land to be sold and the price to be paid therefor. For this purpose the land to be sold had to be measured and a site plan was to be prepared on scale showing the passage to be so carved out, before the execution of the sale deed. The de...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »